“The debate is over.” I don’t know why, but every time I hear a global warming alarmist utter those words, it almost becomes nauseating. Have you watched the Weather Channel lately? Just as one good example—last week, Washington DC was hit with the worst blizzard since 1889. Ironically enough, the global warming hearing that Congress was supposed to have last week was cancelled due to the inclement weather.
Dr. Phil Jones, recently put in the center of the global warming debate because of Climategate, had a few interesting things to say about “global warming” in his latest interview with the BBC. Let me translate in layman’s terms what he had to say.
1) There were comparable “global warming periods” in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940. This is not the first time we’re dealing with this issue. Just forty years ago, environmentalists at the first Earth Day celebration were bemoaning about the next Ice Age. We should not jump to alarmism when the perfectly good explanation is that the changing of climate is a cyclical part of nature. Deal with it!
2) There has been no significant global warming in the past 15 years. Why are we making such a fuss over something insignificant? Can we focus on real issues?
3) Natural influences over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. It’s more than likely that it could have. There is a healthy [and legitimate] skepticism that shows that it is more than plausible that sun spots could be the primary cause of global warming, not man.
4) Q: If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
A: The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.
Translation for 4A: I’m just throwing out some bullocks because quite honestly, I don’t know how that fits into my man-made global warming theory. By confronting the fact that there were warming periods prior to fifty years ago, in fact, torpedoes my theory, and we can’t have any of that.
I can guess that financial incentive of further funding is what truly drives these people to shill this bullocks unto the rest of us. Even Mojib Latif, a leading climatologist, got angry when people took his “ten years of global cooling” findings “out of context.” This just leads me to beg the question of “what doesn’t global warming cause?” It causes heat waves, it causes blizzards, heck, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if they started to say that “global warming” caused the recession. Although if you check out this exceptionally interesting list, you’d be surprised as to what the Far Left can attribute to “climate change.” My personal favorites were that global warming caused Black Hawk Down, and that it will cause world-wide cannibalism. And all of this from something that Phil Jones called an “insignificant change!”
It gets worse to know that Congress is trying to pass the Boxer-Kerry bill, which essentially is a cap-and-trade bill. Although Heritage Foundation provided a bunch of nice graphs illustrating the devastating effects that the bill will have on America, the most intriguing one is the one regarding how it will cause our economy to shrink:
The reason why this problem goes beyond irking me is because we are using unproven science to implement high-cost policies. As the saying goes, "Green is the new red." I really wish the Far Left would let up on their new secular religion, but I guess I would be asking for too much. Note to the Environmentalist Left: rather than give into mass hysteria, maybe we should focus on real problems, such as high unemployment, balance of power issues with China, or even Michelle Obama’s latest pet project of obesity in America.